Sabahlar v Mehana & Anor

On an application for permission to appeal an ancillary-relief order, the appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of the broad discretion under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 unless there is a plain misdirection or error. Contributions under section 25(2) are not confined to direct financial payments. They include contributions to the welfare of the family, including housing and bringing up children. Findings based on disputed and inadequate evidence remain primarily matters for the trial judge, provided the statutory criteria have been applied.

Connell J determined ancillary-relief claims between the applicant husband and the respondent wife. The principal asset was the former matrimonial home, subject to substantial charges. The husband challenged findings concerning an alleged company charge, the wife’s possible interests in Turkish property, the parties’ contributions, and the judge’s assessment of the parties’ conduct. He applied for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether the judgment disclosed an error of law or other basis for appellate intervention.

1. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

2. The trial judge’s findings that both parties had behaved unreasonably and obsessively were based on their oral evidence. Such evaluative findings were essentially matters for the trial judge, and no sufficient basis existed for the Court of Appeal to take a different view.

3. The conclusion that the parties had made equal contributions was open to the judge. Under section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, contributions are not limited to financial contributions. The wife’s mortgage payments, made with family and DSS assistance, and her contribution to the family’s welfare through housing and bringing up the child were relevant.

4. The finding that the company’s investment amounted to a loan rather than a formal charge was a conclusion on inadequate evidence which was for the trial judge to reach and was not open to challenge on appeal.

5. The statutory discretion under section 25 is almost unfettered, subject to applying the section 25(2) criteria. Consistently with Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, appellate intervention requires a plain misdirection or error. None was demonstrated.

• High Court of Justice, Family Division: Connell J made the ancillary-relief order on 19 June 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused.